You see that title up there? You see that story? Currently making a comeback? It's a lie. It's not true and it never has been.

The story of Baa Baa Pink/White/Rainbow/Blue sheep has been going on since the 70s (at least!) and it goes as follows:

'A primary school in Unspecified, England is banning pupils from singing the song Baa Baa Black Sheep on the grounds of racism. Instead, pupils are being made to sing Baa Baa White/Pink/Rainbow/Little/Cthulhoid Sheep.'

It first appeared in a local newspaper not exactly renowned for its validity. From there the Daily Mail (who else) picked up the story and it soon become a national phenomenon, outrage was registered, complaints were lodged and nobody actually stopped to ask the school about it. The school who have always maintained that they never actually stopped their pupils singing the song as it was.

Since then every few years it comes back, and unfortunately there is now a small basis for the story. When teaching children colours, or phonics (now compulsory in English schooling, thanks Michael Gove, you're a journalist not an educator) it makes sense to use simple rhymes they already know to teach them such things. Baa Baa all the colours of the rainbow sheep teaches them about colours, Baa Baa little sheep teaches them a slightly altered melody (which helps somehow with phonics) It is not the only nursery rhyme which is altered in this fashion, but it is of course the only one they can pretend has racial connotations. In point of fact my mother, who is a PGCE lecturer of ten years and a primary school teacher of fifteen, teaches an entire half module on how to alter nursery rhymes to provide multiple lessons from one basic melody.

*pant *pant

Discussion value: Have you ever experienced instances of mass hysteria over something you know to be false? Have you found it impossible to convince people, even with proof, that what they believe is a lie? And I don't mean classic 'conspiracy theories' like 9/11, I mean something that is all but accepted as common sense, apart from the few actually intelligent people who bothered to do the research (ie. you.)

GM crops. There is literally nothing wrong with them, yet I almost guarantee by the time this thread is over someone will have tried to call me out on this, whilst producing no conclusive evidence whatsoever that they're harmful to humans. Same with aspartame...it's one of the most tested food additives in the history of humanity, and they haven't found anything wrong with it (I'm fairly sure).

Don't know anything THAT widespread. Most shit I've heard is the same old "We never landed on the moon!" or "Daddy Long-Legs have the most potent venom in the world but their fangs aren't long enough to pierce human skin" stuff.

Esotera:GM crops. There is literally nothing wrong with them, yet I almost guarantee by the time this thread is over someone will have tried to call me out on this, whilst producing no conclusive evidence whatsoever that they're harmful to humans. Same with aspartame...it's one of the most tested food additives in the history of humanity, and they haven't found anything wrong with it (I'm fairly sure).

There are issues like that fact that the increased survival abilities of the crops can undermine an ecosystem if they spread to the wild.And gene modification allows companies to do rather immoral things. Such as creating a monopoly on corn.

And gene modification allows companies to do rather immoral things. Such as creating a monopoly on corn.

Let's be fair about this, and not confuse the benefits of actually, you know, feeding people with the scumbag lawyer tricks Monsanto pulls. That's not a problem of genetic modification, that's a problem of legislators being for sale to the highest bidder.

And gene modification allows companies to do rather immoral things. Such as creating a monopoly on corn.

Let's be fair about this, and not confuse the benefits of actually, you know, feeding people with the scumbag lawyer tricks Monsanto pulls. That's not a problem of genetic modification, that's a problem of legislators being for sale to the highest bidder.

Indeed.I'm just saying it opens doors, and as of right now we aren't very careful with what doors we let people open.

There was a news report about a woman that had her Facebook account stolen. It started off with "What are the hardships you can face if your identity is stolen?" I was watching (or rather, I was in the same room) with my parents when that was on TV so I just murmured my answer "Not, too big". And then I revised that to a yelled "WHAT?!" when the news people said otherwise. Apparently, that woman had to contact the police and lawyers and several other institutions to do something. I call bullshit on that. Why? Let's see what Fb's FAQ has to say about it. Or maybe how about this if you didn't catch that - the URL is facebook-dot-com-forwardslash-hacked - this is how you recover your account - you don't need the police or anything. Maybe unless Facebook staff are not being helpful (I doubt it - bad publicity) but anyway, she didn't even attempt to do that.

And there was this other time news people managed to show me new depths of stupidity. Let me give you a background first. There was a torrent site that had free and premium accounts and premium just had extra features enabled but were in no way needed to access or use the website. Let's assume the subscription fee was $2 per months (I don't remember and that wasn't even the currency but it should be around that price). And there was a brief snapshot of the currently active peers at the front page of the website.

Some journalist went out and did the Math how the website was making millions each month by multiplying the active peers by the monthly fee. Totally ignoring 1. The VAT on the fee 2. That the number of peers is not the number of people 3. That not all of the people using the website were paying. If I was to hazard a guess, it would be less than a quarter.

There is trying to scare people and there is being totally incompetent. The journalist was totally incompetent.

Oh, and another story of an incompetent journalist: my mother read a pile of bullshit an article about "the dangers of hackers online". And she, not being technically savay (I don't hold it against her) turned to me for more information. I'm happy about that - my parents at least try to verify what they hear/read. Anyway, the article went on how evil hackers could steal your IP address and do stuff with it to launder money and hack other people. I cannot relate the full share of stupidity there was since it was quite a long time ago (and I try not to think about it). But I can say for sure that what the article described had no basis in reality.

'A primary school in Unspecified, England is banning pupils from singing the song Baa Baa Black Sheep on the grounds of racism. Instead, pupils are being made to sing Baa Baa White/Pink/Rainbow/Little/Cthulhoid Sheep.'

Whilst not true, having a class sing Baa Baa Cthulhoid Sheep would be so awesome.

Esotera:GM crops. There is literally nothing wrong with them, yet I almost guarantee by the time this thread is over someone will have tried to call me out on this, whilst producing no conclusive evidence whatsoever that they're harmful to humans. Same with aspartame...it's one of the most tested food additives in the history of humanity, and they haven't found anything wrong with it (I'm fairly sure).

There are issues like that fact that the increased survival abilities of the crops can undermine an ecosystem if they spread to the wild.And gene modification allows companies to do rather immoral things. Such as creating a monopoly on corn.

The same could be said of traditional crops though as well...potatoes are pretty hard to get rid of once they've been planted, for example. But I get your point. GM crops really need multiple different strains for each harvest, that'd solve a lot of resistance issues we're going to see in the coming decades. No idea how corporations such as Monsanto can be taken down a peg though.

my reaction waswait some one took the daily mail seriously? really? people really give a shit what that newspaper thinks? its basically a trolling news paper the IGN/4chan of the news industry and should be laughed at in the street.

xSKULLY:my reaction waswait some one took the daily mail seriously? really? people really give a shit what that newspaper thinks? its basically a trolling news paper the IGN/4chan of the news industry and should be laughed at in the street.

Well it is the highest selling newspaper in the country, and apparently also has the highest traffic on its website of any of the newspaper online sites. So yeah, I'd say people read it and probably take it seriously. Kind of like how no matter how much left wing/socialist/liberals know that Fox is the joke of the televisual news, according to the Democratic Party-affiliated Public Policy Polling they are still considered the second most trusted news source in the country.

xSKULLY:my reaction waswait some one took the daily mail seriously? really? people really give a shit what that newspaper thinks? its basically a trolling news paper the IGN/4chan of the news industry and should be laughed at in the street.

Well it is the highest selling newspaper in the country, and apparently also has the highest traffic on its website of any of the newspaper online sites. So yeah, I'd say people read it and probably take it seriously. Kind of like how no matter how much left wing/socialist/liberals know that Fox is the joke of the televisual news, according to the Democratic Party-affiliated Public Policy Polling they are still considered the second most trusted news source in the country.

dudes, c'mon. Food additives and GM crops?Gaming. Gaming causing violence and aggression. Biggest load of crap ever, yet the news, possibly with no gamers amongst their journalists to offer another slant, come out every so often with how 'No Russian' is teaching kids how to be terrorists.

And gene modification allows companies to do rather immoral things. Such as creating a monopoly on corn.

Let's be fair about this, and not confuse the benefits of actually, you know, feeding people with the scumbag lawyer tricks Monsanto pulls. That's not a problem of genetic modification, that's a problem of legislators being for sale to the highest bidder.

Indeed.I'm just saying it opens doors, and as of right now we aren't very careful with what doors we let people open.

Problem is, the EU refuses to even touch on GM crops. They have about as much credibility here as stem cell research had in the US under the Bush administration. Food packets carry 'No GM' labels as if it's a badge of achievement, and I've seen many food establishments have notices up telling people how they endeavour to never have GM ingredients as if they expect to be applauded for it. It's like having a sign up assuring people you only have gas lights and will never touch that dangerous, new-fangled electricity.

So while I agree GM crops should be carefully monitored and tested before being released for widespread use, just like you would with a new drug, I find it intensely frustrating that the EU refuses to even consider the possibility of using genetic engineering in crops. They seem to be forgetting the improved yield GM rice and wheat strains that were used in the 70s, which saved upwards of a billion people from starvation, if estimates are to be believed.

OT: The MMR vaccine fiasco. For the last goddamn time, a vaccine is not going to give your child autism. Correlation does not equal causation; the age at which autism symptoms normally appear is the same age at which the vaccine is administered. It is far more dangerous to leave your child unvaccinated against mumps, measles and rubella than to forgo it because your child may have an tiny possibility of 'catching' autism from it. Also, the way in which a couple of mothers with anecdotal evidence were presented as having an equal say in the matter to the many, many medical professionals who disproved the claim was utterly disgusting. There are still some parents who refuse the MMR vaccine for their children today thanks to this.

Baa baa black sheep, have you any wool? Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full!One for the master, one for the dame,And one for the little boy who lives down the lane.

The hidden implication is that the White sheep, noticibly absent from the story, would be less willing to create wool and (judging from its recaliant attitude in not being immediatly present in the rhyme) more disruptive and less willing to serve.

Now that is important because the origin of the story was actually Flemish, who were renowned for their black sheep during the 17th century, although the name of the breed escapes me at this time. The White sheep, however, was at the time the prevelant breed associated with Welsh herds, the Cheviot. Flemish herd owners, in leauge with sponsers in the Government at Westminster, wished to sell their stock to England which was heavily reliant on herds in Wales and Scotland for wool production.

Now England, as we all know, was heavily orientated towards pig and bovine farming and the efforts of the Flemish herd owners undermined the important role of wool production from Wales, less so Scotland as their herds were mostly meat herds. Thus the infamous nursery rhhyme was in many ways the first salvo in a race war that would ultimately end in the infamous (and tragically mostly forgotton) Ponty Pandy massacre of 1816.

The massacre caused an uproar which in turn led to a reduction in the English-Flemish links in the upper class which has been cited as one of the influences of the 1830 Belgian uprising which, of course, resulted in the nation of Belgium.

I was going to comment how this was an old story blown out of proportion but the OP did it so I got nothing. Damn you OP you pulled the wool over our eyes with your thread title.

One popular bullshit story that the papers in Britain loved, was that offices are banning office Christmas parties and Christmas will be renamed Winterval as to not offend non-Christians. When actually Winterval was a series of public events held in Birmingham in during the winter. The name was the brilliant brain storm of Head of Events in Birmingham City Council, combining the words 'winter' and 'festival' to become 'winterval' (must of took him all day with that one). The name had nothing to do with PC rebranding of Christmas but the papers went mad with it anyway.

Also any law that the papers report that has been passed by the EU i.e. illegal to sell bananas that are too curvy or fishermen having where hair nets while fishing. It's sad how much people fall for this even when the papers admit their just making it up.

I'm kind of sick of it. Everything is damn well offensive to someone if they're willing to take it just the right way, but I question how much it matters: there is a line between offensive language/concept/belief and 'real' discrimination.

to be perfectly honest, I think the majority of the people who live in modernized countries and get outrage by 'offensive' things don't know what real discrimination 'is'.

as I understand it, When your situation is the same and you're prevented from having the same rights as a group that you are only different from physically, sexually, and/or in appearance. That is discrimination.

There are places in the world where you can and will be chopped to death with a hatchet for being gay. and your neighbors will call your death just because god says gays are evil.

Americans/the English to a lesser extent, on the other hand, seem to have no grounding in reality. we carry our torch of eradicating offensiveness in all forms and seem to get hyped up by the media into borderline religious fervor on these petty and completely absurd non-issues.

There are 'real' problems with discrimination in the world. But I think we've created one that's almost as big as real racism or discrimination: fear of being labeled as a discriminator.

In what kind of society is it acceptable for schools to censor relatively bland children's rhymes out of fear of offending someone? 'that school condoned use of the word BLACK SHEEP! QUICK!! someone alert the supreme court!'

I'm kind of sick of it. Everything is damn well offensive to someone if they're willing to take it just the right way, but I question how much it matters: there is a line between offensive language/concept/belief and 'real' discrimination.

to be perfectly honest, I think the majority of the people who live in modernized countries and get outrage by 'offensive' things don't know what real discrimination 'is'.

as I understand it, When your situation is the same and you're prevented from having the same rights as a group that you are only different from physically, sexually, and/or in appearance. That is discrimination.

There are places in the world where you can and will be chopped to death with a hatchet for being gay. and your neighbors will call your death just because god says gays are evil.

Americans/the English to a lesser extent, on the other hand, seem to have no grounding in reality. we carry our torch of eradicating offensiveness in all forms and seem to get hyped up by the media into borderline religious fervor on these petty and completely absurd non-issues.

There are 'real' problems with discrimination in the world. But I think we've created one that's almost as big as real racism or discrimination: fear of being labeled as a discriminator.

In what kind of society is it acceptable for schools to censor relatively bland children's rhymes out of fear of offending someone? 'that school condoned use of the word BLACK SHEEP! QUICK!! someone alert the supreme court!'

meh it's first world problems... people are so bored they just nitpick and start shit

I rather enjoy it because I'm about as far from PC as you can get so it's amusing to watch people freak over pointless shit

This whole racism stuff is ridiculous. If I'm working outside with a friend, he gets thirsty and I tell him to "use the spig" if one of my neighbors overhears that conversations I could probably get sued for racism. Fucking ridiculous these days

Flailing Escapist:This whole racism stuff is ridiculous. If I'm working outside with a friend, he gets thirsty and I tell him to "use the spig" if one of my neighbors overhears that conversations I could probably get sued for racism. Fucking ridiculous these days

I've gotten into a few debates over the existence of Illuminati and whether or not they really run everything. I think it's a bunch of bullshit but everybody that argues with me just says "DUDE, GO LOOK AT THE YOUTUBE VIDEOS!" Which are just a bunch of weird pictures quickly edited together with creepy music and million cherry picked instances of "Illuminati" symbols which are usually from super trivial crap anyways.

Then of course the 9/11 "truthers" but I tend to avoid the topic because the theories are just so stupid and already disproven. Of course all you'll hear is "The scientists are working for the government, all of them!" Riiiiight.